Keir Starmer aka Captain Flip Flop

JaneJudge

It’s against talk guidelines to talk about other threads anyway from what I gather

It's not easy to gather the rules, I agree .

But whether people are named or referred to obliquely makes no difference to that - they are still being talked about, but are sitting targets as they are denied the right to speak in their own defence.

The Daily Mail's headline following the Conservative's defeat in the General Election was, as I remember, 'Let us be gracious in defeat.' Quite right. This can be followed by 'Let us be magnanimous in victory.' which was generally the case. I was therefore surprised at the continuing level of antagonism expressed repeatedly by some posters against the Conservatives, past and present. Yesterday's posts on this thread were an example.
There is no rule against reading past posts; they are there for everyone to see if they wish. I deliberately did not quote examples and most certainly not names; I am uncertain of the protocol concerning quoting from past threads, besides which many are not relevant to current issues; posters have left, changed names or even opinions. But to read expressions of outrage against opposition parties' criticism of the current government from its supporters who have systematically done the same for the previous five years is hypocritical. I am happy to challenge posters on a current thread if I see fit.

To be told that one may not use a nickname coined by a previous politician or share a video which apparently justifies that name by posters is beyond their remit, as is attacking an apparently new poster for daring to start a thread.

Some posters, (that word again), have been suspended for particularly vicious attacks and others banned for unpleasant behaviour which seems to be emerging once more.

Primrose53

eazybee

I spent some time trawling through past posts on News and Politics from 2020 onwards, and the level of vituperation from a few persistent posters against the Conservative was truly shocking. Some are still doing it while at the same time attempting to prevent any criticism of the present government.

You are correct eazybee, I have been aware of this too. It seems they think it’s fine to run down the Conservative party for all those years but that’s not enough for them. They then have to carry on but getting digs in against anybody who makes comments they don’t like against Labour.

Why can’t they just be happy to support their party and leave it at that?

You are correct eazybee, I have been aware of this too. It seems they think it’s fine to run down the Conservative party for all those years but that’s not enough for them. They then have to carry on but getting digs in against anybody who makes comments they don’t like against Labour.

I don't know who the 'they' are being referred to here - but as one who has been critical of the Tory party then I'm going to take the liberty of assuming I can be one of the they?

When a party is 'in power' it has an Opposition which legitimately questions its policies and ideology - that's its raison d'être. So why would the electorate - whether on here or anywhere else, not do the same?

I voted for Starmer's Labour Party - but here's the thing, I don't believe he's 'sainted' nor infallible, nor that he or his party should be immune from criticism or being held to account. I think the decision to restrict the WFA to pensioners in receipt of pension credit is wrong for reasons I've stated. I also believe his Chancellor is subscribing to the misconception that the economy is run like a household budget in order to deceive the public into accepting the 'there-is-no-money' fallacy. I won't delve further into that because it is not the point I'm trying to make.

I would also add that I believe the Tories, had they remained in government, would eventually have gone down the same path towards removing the WFA- hence their consultation document in which this option was mentioned. In my opinion, Starmer - in order to appeal to the widest 'audience' - the captains of industry and commerce, would-be investors, etc, wanted to give the impression that he could be as 'tough' as the Tories on public-spending so that he could distance himself from the Corbyn-era Labour party politics.

IMO the last Tory government were incompetent, self-serving and, in some instances, corrupt, and relied on short-term popular fixes to deal with long-term problems, and I make no apology for saying so now and have said so previously.

In spite of having voted for Starmer's LP - I will hold him and it to account in exactly the same way as I did the previous government.

... as one of the 'they'.

Well said Dickens. I didn't vote Labour or Conservative and I am watching carefully what the Labour party do in future.

Well said Dickens.
I wouldn’t argue with your overall view of the last government, but that shouldn’t mean I can’t criticise this one.

Mollygo

Well said Dickens.
I wouldn’t argue with your overall view of the last government, but that shouldn’t mean I can’t criticise this one.

I agree Mollygo.

All governments should be held to account by us, regardless, because they are there to serve us.

How we do it on here though is, I think, important.

When Rishi Sunak acknowledged defeat, he did it with civility and dignity - he was gracious towards Starmer calling him “a decent, public-spirited man who I respect” whilst Starmer praised his predecessor's "dedication and hard work".

Just saying - as they say!

Agree absolutely Dickens. I hold everyone in public office to account, whatever their political affiliations, and hope that everyone has the same clear - eyed view of these people, whether or not they represent the same views .

Chocolatelovinggran

Agree absolutely Dickens. I hold everyone in public office to account, whatever their political affiliations, and hope that everyone has the same clear - eyed view of these people, whether or not they represent the same views .

I agree. I can honestly say that I can't think of anyone on here who slavishly defends the government now, or the LP in opposition.

This is another reason why the veiled references to 'some people' are so exasperating. I have no idea who is being referred to.

Given that the Tories were in power for 14 years and Labour for less than 6 weeks I don't understand why some Tory supporters are getting their knickers and/or their pearls in a twist about the way in which the former govt were referred to.

I can assure you that many LP members and supporters were equally pissed off with Blair (perhaps not pearl clutching) when he was PM. They will be out in force once Labour has been in power for more than a few weeks or months.

Means testing is expensive to manage. I think that the only way in which it could be done would be via tax returns. However, there are many people who have income from an employment who do not submit tax returns.

Therefore, the answer, as many have mentioned, is to ensure that everyone claims the benefits to which they are entitled. Those people who are only receiving benefits, including the state pension, do not need the PA to be increased since these are not taxable.

Increasing the PA would benefit those who receive a private or employment pension which takes them above the current PA. But that's a different question.

The two are not linked.

Those people who are only receiving benefits, including the state pension, do not need the PA to be increased since these are not taxable.

To clarify, Dinahmo, I thought on earlier threads about the personal allowance that we had established that the state pension would be taxable if it were to exceed the personal allowance. At the moment neither the 'new' or the 'old' basic state pension exceeds the PA but there is potential for this happen if the pension rises but the PA remains frozen.

I',m just asking for clarification because, as it is written, you seem to imply that the state pension isn't taxable because it is a benefit. I suspect that is not what you intended..

Taxing the WFP would seem a simple option for those already paying tax. For a basic rate taxpayer, a coding adjustment of £1000 would clawback £200.

However, it might require some people to self assess just as those higher earners subject to the Child Benefit clawback have to do.

There’s an inherent problem in asking people who may already be struggling week-to-week, to put money aside for tax.

I also see unfairness because the state pension is taxable while pension credit is not. If all someone has is an income topped up by Guaranteed Pension Credit to £218 pw then they are going to be under the tax threshold but for someone whose income comprises a State Pension of £218 plus some other income that just takes them over the theshold, they will have the whole pension taken into account in calculating their tax liability.

There will be people now who have State Pension and Additional State Pension that, without any other income, takes them over the tax threshold. The maximum weekly Additional State Pension (aSP) is £218.39 paid on top of basic state pension. I know a few older women who have inherited their husband’s state and aSP entitlement, or a good percentage of, and have pensions in excess of £300 a week. The maximum you could have is £388 pw. The trade of is that they have little or nothing in the way of works pensions.

This why former Pensions Minister Steve Webb has been in the news again talking about widows who are being underpaid state pension:

www.theguardian.com/money/article/2024/aug/10/uk-state-pension-thousands-underpaid-widows-widowers-dwp

It has never been more important to make sure that you know what you are entitled to and claim it.

Dinahmo

Given that the Tories were in power for 14 years and Labour for less than 6 weeks I don't understand why some Tory supporters are getting their knickers and/or their pearls in a twist about the way in which the former govt were referred to.

Could you post a reference to where you have seen Tory supporters are getting their knickers and/or their pearls in a twist about the way in which the former govt were referred.

I’ve only seen Labour supporters on here getting their underwear tangled or clutching their non-vegan jewellery because posters are criticising Labour. I haven’t seen them defending the previous government.

Are you really saying no one is allowed to criticise Labour because Labour supporters say so?

First it was only been in for 4 weeks, then 5 weeks and now less than 6 weeks.

IYO, is there a time limit for them to be in power before anyone can express dislike of their actions, their proposals or their leader without being accused of something they haven’t done?

Mollygo

x.com/actionbrexit/status/1821506730527781315?s=46&t=O5n-YYjDdRFzkV5vLpTIig

In this clip, Starmer is challenging Sunak to withdraw plans to withhold the WFS from pensioners to fill the £ 46billion black hole.

Are you still saying that Starmer did not know about the £46 billion black hole?

Strange that Starmer is now planning to do something we can see/hear him challenging Sunak not to do, to fill a black hole that he knew about when challenging Sunak, but conveniently didn’t know a couple of months later?

If only he would be as quick stopping other things as he did this one. Pensioners are an easy target.

TheHappyGardener

Blimey …. at no point did I infer anyone HAD to share it, I just thought it would be interesting to some …. each to their own of course

Oh dear Happy Gardener, did you not realise just how many on here belong to the Keir Starmer fan club

Btw I'm happy to share on Facebook but I don't know how to

TheHappyGardener

Thank you Primrose53 and BevSec and others for your supportive messages. I’ve been to work for a couple of hours this afternoon, mulled things over in my head, caught up with comments on here and have decided I’m not going to leave GN just because my views are different to some of the more vocal posters. I’m entitled to my views just as they are entitled to theirs and I certainly don’t think there was anything wrong with my post! If this stirs up the hornets’ nest again, my apologies - I won’t be responding to any more posts on this subject.

👏👏👏👏👏👏 So glad you are staying Happy Gardener.
Absolutely nothing wrong with your post, it gives a bit of balance to these usually one-sided discussions.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

I agree with you Joseann.
I’m very upset about the poster who has been banned this morning. I don’t even know what was written that was deleted because I wasn’t on GN earlier to see it. It can only be described as some people or someone because we don’t know know who.
I had a post deleted yesterday (on a different thread) but that was because it was a really horrible personal attack on me. And it upset me a lot due to circumstances in my family. That’s why I didn’t come on GN this morning.

I meant I asked for a post to be deleted

GN is so toxic at the moment.

I find it ridiculous that the Conservatives have had to put up with all manner of insults, but lo and behold Labour are elected and their GN supporters turn into delicate little flowers, who we are unable to comment on…

Report button frenzy…

I’m a LP supporter, and like to think I’m fairly balanced.

They are humans, they will make mistakes, we will call them out, as we should.

I have mixed feelings about WFA as I’m happy to forfeit mine, but unhappy at the thought of pensions being pushed into a “eat or heat” situation, which would be terrible.

I wasn’t aware someone else has been banned, but for the record, 1) I don’t want to see anyone banned, including those who have been and 2) I’ve never reported anyone on GNs.

At the end of the day, the OP posted a link showing Keir Starmer saying that he wouldn’t remove WFA from pensioners.
Last week WFA was removed from pensioners.
That is what the whole thread is about.

Exactly maddyone , whether or not the Conservatives would have removed it we will never know, the bottom line is that Labour have removed it.

They have given Pensioners four pension payments to save for their winter fuel bills. How are they meant to save when many are living hand to mouth as it is!

Cossy I’m not a Labour supporter (although as centre voter I agree with some of their policies) and I do think you’re pretty balanced.
I don’t like seeing people banned, but I do think deleting a comment is necessary sometimes, especially if a poster makes a personal attack (which I was subjected to yesterday on a different thread) and I was very upset by it.

I haven’t posted on this thread because I’m pretty relaxed about Tories criticising the government.

I would be astounded if they didn’t. Some of it is a bit premature, but hey Ho.

They have, if all goes well 5 years at least to hone their skills.

So hone away folks😄😄😄